Bimalendu Bhattacharyya Vs State of West Bengal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

Bimalendu Bhattacharyya Vs State of West Bengal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's challenge to the stoppage of his increment (stopped in 2015 for non-cooperation in evaluation of Higher Secondary answer scripts) is barred by delay and laches, having remained silent for 10 years until 2025 and raised the issue only after retirement. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petitioner is deemed to have waived any right to challenge the stoppage of increment and/or to have acquiesced therein by remaining silent for 10 years until 2025.

Ratio / Principle

It is well settled that delay and laches are fatal to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

A delay of 10 years in approaching the court and challenging the action of the respondents disentitles the petitioner from any relief before this Court.ratio¶¶14
On the finding of waiver/acquiescence and delay and laches, the order of the Single Bench does not call for any interference.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

F.M.A. 763 of 2025 (with connected I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025), decided 24.07.2026 by a Division Bench comprising Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ. The appellant, a writ petitioner, challenged the stoppage of his increment effected in 2015 following his non-cooperation in the evaluation of Higher Secondary answer scripts; the proposal to stop increment had issued on 11th September, 2014, and was answered on 16th September, 2014, pleading ill health and heavy pressure. Counsel for the appellant argued that a pass graduate teacher was not obliged in law to evaluate such answer scripts, but the Court noted this defence did not appear in the reply to the proposal. Holding that the petitioner had waived any right to challenge and/or acquiesced in the stoppage by remaining silent for 10 years until 2025, and raising the issue for the first time after retirement, the Court held that delay and laches are fatal to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that a 10-year delay disentitled the petitioner from relief. The order of the Single Bench was left undisturbed. FMA 763 of 2025 failed and was dismissed; the connected pending application was also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

24.07.2026. Court No. 13 Item No. 8 pk

F. M. A. 763 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025

Bimalendu Bhattacharyya -Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Md. Mojnu Sk.

… for the appellant .

Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Ms. Mary Datta,

… for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved that he has been wrongfully deprived of any increment that was stopped due to his non cooperation in evaluation of higher secondary answer script in the year 2015.

It is argued that the proposal to stop increment was initiated on 11^th September, 2014. The writ petitioner replied to such proposal on 16^th September, 2014. His reply is that due to ill health and heavy pressure he could not evaluate the answer script across the bar.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner was not obliged in law to evaluate the answer script of the higher secondary course when he was pass graduate teacher. The said defence does not appear to have been taken in the reply to the proposal.

2

Be that as it may, increment was stopped for a particular period in the year 2015. The writ petitioner must be deemed to have waived any right to challenge the same and/or acquiesced thereto for remaining silent for 10 years until 2025. He has raised the issue for the first time after he retired from service.

It is now well settled that delay and laches are fatal to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Delay of 10 years in approaching the court and challenging the action of the respondents would disentitl the petitioner from any relief before this Court.

In that view of the matter, the order of the Single Bench does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, FMA 763 of 2025 fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connection pending

application is also dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

3